Saturday, December 07, 2013

Why I'm Not Excited about the Reform Act

Solon’s laws for Athens, the Magna Carta, the Emancipation Proclamation,
all key milestones in the history of democracy which pale into insignificance when
compared to Conservative MP Michael Chong’s Great Reform Act of 2013.

Or so says the hype emanating from that alternate reality dimension
known as the “Ottawa Bubble”.

Ottawa Bubblonians -- columnists, pundits, editorial writers
-- are gleefully extolling Chong’s bill
-- which would “empower” backbench MPs by, among other things, making it easier
for them to dispatch their leaders -- because they love the idea of returning
to a purer 19th century-style British parliamentary democracy.

Ha just kidding!

Of course, they really love this Bill for a more basic
reason: they believe it’s embarrassing to Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

So what do I think about Chong’s bill?

Well, even though I love 19th century political
conventions as much as the next guy, I really can’t work up too much excitement
about a bill that simply shifts the balance of power on Parliament Hill.

By the way, I suspect it’s the same for most non-Ottawa
Bubblonian Canadians.

I doubt very much, for instance, that people get up in the
morning saying, “Forget about the economy and the threat of nuclear war, if
only we could restore our ancient Westminster British Parliamentary traditions
so that my MP could have more power.”

Not that such indifference matters to the Ottawa Bubblonians
who would argue that if Canadians only stopped watching mindless TV and spent
more time reading Hansard, they would also love Chong’s bill because it would
loosen the iron grip of party leaders on their MPs and thus usher in a Golden
Age of Good Government.

And even if it doesn’t usher in a Golden Age, Chong’s Bill
might at least encourage more MPs to openly defy their leaders and speak their
mind, which would undeniably strengthen the Parliamentary Press Gallery’s
democratic right to write more juicy and gossipy stories.

Yet, even those powerful arguments don’t move me.

For one thing, I doubt Chong’s Bill, even if passed without amendments, would do much in practical terms to weaken party leaders. After all,
it was more than 40 years ago that then Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau mocked
backbench MPs as nobodies and ever since then political power has been
inexorably centralized in the leader’s office.

And I’m sorry, but one parliamentary bill isn’t going to reverse
that flow of power, the parliamentary toothpaste is out of the tube -- like it
or not, for a whole bunch of reasons, our system has evolved so that party leaders
are the undisputed “Kings of the Hill.”

But even if the pro-Reform Act enthusiasts are correct, even
if this bill would empower MPs and reduce the leader’s clout, I’d still ask
that most important of all questions: “So
what?”

Why should anybody who lives outside the Ottawa Bubble really
care if the power dynamic on Parliament Hill has been altered?

Certainly, Chong’s proposed changes won’t make our system
any more democratic, unless you call giving a small cabal of disgruntled MPs the
power to “fire” a prime minister -- who was elected to the job by millions of
people -- democratic.

(OK, I realize Canadians don’t directly elect the prime
minister, but let’s be honest, when most people vote it’s usually not the local
guy they are thinking about when they write down their X on the ballot. They
are really voting for the party leader they like best.)

At the very least, allowing a small group of MPs to undo a
democratic decision is an idea that runs counter to the Reformist-populist
ideal of devolving power to the grassroots.

Traditionalists, of course, might contend that making MPs
more powerful is actually good for democracy because it means they will act as
a bulwark against tyranny.

The idea is that if some future prime minister starts
getting all Julius Ceasary, the Reform Act will give MPs the power to grab
metaphorical daggers so they can quickly and efficiently strike a blow for
liberty.

And that’s a great argument, except that it overlooks one
key fact: MPs are first and foremost politicians, which is to say they are usually
guided by their own political self-interest, meaning the only time they will go
all “Ides of March” on a leader will be when they reckon he or she has become
an electoral liability and thus a threat to their own future.

To put it another way, when MPs decide whether or not to
depose their leader, things like principles and democracy and liberty, will be
less important to their calculations than the most recent polling numbers.
Indeed, it’s possible we could see a prime minister deposed simply because he
or she is enacting necessary but unpopular measures.

So when you boil it down to its basics, all Chong’s Bill
will do is make it easier for jittery MPs to save their own electoral skins.

To that I say, “Big whooping deal!”

As far as I’m concerned, there’s only one meaningful way to reform government power – and that’s to reduce it

Asking me to get excited about the Reform Act is
like asking a deer to get excited because a pack of wolves has come up with an
easier way to replace its dominant male..

4 comments:

Anonymous
said...

Nice straw man arguments there, but you are so out to lunch on pretty much all your arguments. How does allowing MP's to vote their mind and not feel threatened by their omnipotent leader help democracy? Do I really need to answer that for someone who is pretty much directly involved in politics? Well let me tell you anyways; By allowing our democratically elected MP's to be able to listen to their CONSTITUENTS as opposed to the party LEADER, it does this craaaazy thing like allowing MP's to SPEAK for their CONSTITUENTS! Isnt that a nutty idea? Almost sounds like it might be slightly more....oh I dont know, democratic maybe?Get off the high horse and speak some reality. Your shill is showing.

Gerry you miss the point about nominations. As long as leaders control candidate nominations we will not have ensure legislative control over the executive. So what, you ask? I'll tell you what. A dictatorship is executive control over the legislative branch. Parliament was created to ensure legislative control over the executive. When party leaders control candidate nominations we get too much--not complete but too much-executive control over the legislative branch. Chong's bill addresses that.

Gerry you miss the point about nominations. As long as leaders control candidate nominations we will not have ensure legislative control over the executive. So what, you ask? I'll tell you what. A dictatorship is executive control over the legislative branch. Parliament was created to ensure legislative control over the executive. When party leaders control candidate nominations we get too much--not complete but too much-executive control over the legislative branch. Chong's bill addresses that.

About Me

Gerry Nicholls is a communications consultant and writer who has been called a “political warrior” a “brilliant strategist” and one of the “canniest political observers in Canada.”
He has worked as a consultant in both the United States and Canada and was formerly a senior officer in the National Citizens Coalition.
A regular columnist with the Ottawa Hill Times, his work has also appeared in the Globe and Mail, the National Post and in the Sun Media chain; and he has appeared on countless TV and radio public affairs programs. He is the author of the book, Loyal to the Core, Harper, Me and the NCC.

Twitter Updates

Twitter Updates

Reviews for Loyal to the Core

“Loyal to the Core is a daring and provocative work. It deserves to be read by conservative activists and politicos.” – Western Standard

“This is a very important book.” -- Michael Coren, TV host

“A fascinating read” --- Seamus O'Regan, Canada AM

“I really enjoyed Loyal to the Core. It’s a great book”, - Charles Adler, radio host.

"Loyal to the Core should be required reading for anyone considering or starting a career at a conservative think tank or in electoral politics in general …Consider Loyal to the Core a cautionary tale that’s also a funny, easy read – with a few highly “stealable” ideas for media campaigns thrown in for good measure.”- Kathy Shaidle, author Tyranny of Nice

“Every Canadian remotely interested in politics and the state of the country should have a read of Loyal to the Core. – blogger Wendy Sullivan

"It’s rare to find a politico, however, who is equally passionate about policy and strategy, but columnist, pundit, author and Western Standard blogger Gerry Nicholls is such a person." Matthew Johnson, owner Western Standard

"If you are a conservative who wonders how conservatives can communicate their message in a hostile media climate, Loyal to the Core is a must read." -- At Home in Hespeler